JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur (for short 'the trial court hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 33/86, whereby the trial court found the first appellant Nena Ram guilty for offence under sections 326, 324 and 323 I.PC. and convicted and sentenced him for the offence under section 326 I.PC. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment; for the offence under Section 324 I.PC., one years rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under section 323 I.PC. to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Second appellant Bhoora Ram was convicted under section 325 I.PC. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine, further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He was also convicted for the offences under sections 324 and 323 I.PC. and was sentenced to undergo one years and six months imprisonment respectively. 3. Third appellant Triloka Ram was convicted under section 323, 324/34 I.P.C. but instead of sending him jail, he was directed to be released on probation. All the substantive sentenced awarded against first and second appellants were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred this criminal appeal. 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 29.11.1985 sat 10.50 A.M. injured Complainant PW. 1 Smt. Pani lodged a report Ex.P/8 with Police Station, Phalodi alleging therein that in the morning of the day, her daughters PW. 18 Papu and Pila were tending their cows to graze in her field at village Maukheri. In the hamlet, her son PW. 14 Paramsukh, husband PW. 13 Loonkaran, her sons brother- in- law (loser) PW. 3 Mohan Ram were taking breakfast. Her daughters PW. 18 Papu and Pila returned to hamlet leaving the cows in their field. On this, PW. 1 Pani along with her daughter PW. 18 Papu went towards their field and found that accused Rana, Nena, Tiloka. Bhoora and Magiya Suthar were taking away her cows. She protested but despite her protest, the aforesaid accused persons took away the cows and tied them in their field. On this, PW. 1 Pani along with her daughter PW. 18 Papu went towards their field and found that accused Rana, Nena, Tiloka. Bhoora and Magiya Suthar were taking away her cows. She protested but despite her protest, the aforesaid accused persons took away the cows and tied them in their field. All of them had "Jharbads" (iron instrument which is used for cutting bushes) as they had been cutting bushes (fodder) in their field. When she began to untie her cows, first appellant Nena Ram struck on herforehead with 'Jharbad" hitting upon her gold forehead ornament (Boriya), which blow cut the "Boriya" and one piece of "Boriya" dropped down while another piece kept hanging at the forehead and "Jharbad" caused incised injury on the forehead of PW. 1 Pani, her skin was cut and blood began to flow. She fell down. Her daughter Papu PW. 18 and she started crying. On hearing their cries, her sons Paramsukh PW. 14 and husband Loonkaran PW. 13 came on the spot. Accused appellants with an intention to kill Loonkaran PW. 13 and son Paramsukh PW. 14, assaulted them with "Jharbads". First accused appellant Nena Ram caused injuries with "Jharbad" on the forehead of Loonkaran, husband of Complainant Pani PW. 1 and thereafter Rana and Tiloka struck "Jharbad" blows to kill them. Hearing cries, her son PW. 19 Nema alias Nimbu and PW. 3 Mohan Ram came and shouted towards the accused to save the injured person otherwise the accused- persons would have killed them. Several injuries were caused on the person of her husband PW. 13 Loonkaran with iron "Jharbad" and on the person of her son Paramsukh PW. 14. Their cloths were soiled with blood. This incident had occurred on 29.11.1985 in the morning at about 8 Oclock. Her gold ornament (totia) weighing half tola fell at the site of incident. On the basis of oral report made by PW. 1, Pani, S.H.O., Police Station, Phalodi registered a case under Sections 324, 307, 147, 148 and 149, I.P.C. and proceeded with the investigation. 5. Three injured persons namely PW. 1 Pani, PW. 13 Loonkaran and PW. 14 Paramsukh were medically examined. However, PW. 1 Pani and PW. 14 Paramsukh were referred to Jodhpur. All the three injured persons were admitted in the hospital for treatment. They were examined by Medical Jurist and Radiologist. 5. Three injured persons namely PW. 1 Pani, PW. 13 Loonkaran and PW. 14 Paramsukh were medically examined. However, PW. 1 Pani and PW. 14 Paramsukh were referred to Jodhpur. All the three injured persons were admitted in the hospital for treatment. They were examined by Medical Jurist and Radiologist. After investigation, police led the chalian against the appellants and other accused persons. The appellants and other accused persons were put to trial. Prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and produced the documentary evidence Ex.P. 1 to P 36 to prove its case. Accused persons made their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the prosecution version of the incident. The first appellant Nena Ram stated that he was in the field and was cutting "Gwar", at that time, Loonkaran's cows roamed into their field caused damage, therefore, the cows were driven out but again entered into the field then they shut them in the pen. Thereafter, Pani came and tried to take away the cows calling bad names just then Loonkaran and Paramsukh came and took up sticks to hit on Bhoora Ram. At that time, Bhoora Ram warded with bai (A blunt wooden instrument used for collection of fodder) and stick slipped off and hit Pani, who was standing beside. The incriminating evidence produced by the prosecution was put to second appellant Bhoora Ram, who denied the same. Accused Triloka Ram stated in his statement that on the day of incident in the morning, he was cutting bushes (fodder) in his field and at that time cows roamed into their field, caused damage, therefore, the cows were driven out but again entered into the field then they shut them in the pen. Thereafter, Pani came and tried to take away the cows calling bad names. Loonkaran and Paramsukh came. No sooner did they come Loonkaran tried to hit him with stick. He warded with bat Loonkaran s stick slipped and hit Pani. Paramsukh fell down on his own and therefore, he suffered face injury. Accused produced DW. 1 Bhopal Singh and DW. 2 Bhiyan Ram as their defence witnesses. 6. PW. 1 Smt. Pani is injured Complainant. In her deposition before the trial court, she stated that her cows were grazing in their field. Her daughter PW. 18 Papu and Pila took the cows to graze in their filed at village Maukheri. Accused produced DW. 1 Bhopal Singh and DW. 2 Bhiyan Ram as their defence witnesses. 6. PW. 1 Smt. Pani is injured Complainant. In her deposition before the trial court, she stated that her cows were grazing in their field. Her daughter PW. 18 Papu and Pila took the cows to graze in their filed at village Maukheri. At that time, she along with her husband and sons brother- in- law Mohan Ram and another son Nimbu were in the hamlet. The occurrence is of 8.00 A.M. Her husband, both sons Paramsukh and Nimbu and Nimbus brother- in- law Mohan Ram were taking breakfast. At that time, PW. 18 Papu and Pila came back leaving the cows in their field to the house and said that they will also take the break fast. She along with PW. 18 Papu went to the field, where cows were grazing. She found accused Rana, Nena, Bhoora, Triloka and Maga, who were cutting bushes in their field. All the five persons came to her filed and took away the cows to the field of Nena and tied the cows there. She align with PW. 18 Papu wanted to untie the cows and take them back. Rana, who was standing nearby, told his companions to assault, on which first appellant Nena Ram inflicted a "Jharbad" blow on her head, due to which, the gold ornament (Boriya), which was tied on the forehead cut into two pieces and caused incised injury on her forehead. Once part of "Boriya" (forehead gold ornanment) fell down and another part remained hanging on the head, her skin was cut and blood started coming form her head. She stated that the "Jharbad" is an iron instrument which is used for cutting bushes. Another gold ornament weighing 1/2 tola fell down from her ears. She and her daughter PW. 18 Papu raised cries. Her husband PW. 13 Loonkaran and her sons PW. 14 Paramsukh and PW. 19 Nimbu and Nimbus brother- in- law PW. 3 Mohan Ram came there. First of all Paramsukh came. Her daughter PW. 18 Papu informed him of the happening, on which first appellant Nena, Rana and third appellant Triloka, second appellant Bhoora and Maga, who were standing there, inflicted injuries on the head, shoulder and other parts of body of her son PW. 14 Paramsukh. He fell down. Her husband PW. First of all Paramsukh came. Her daughter PW. 18 Papu informed him of the happening, on which first appellant Nena, Rana and third appellant Triloka, second appellant Bhoora and Maga, who were standing there, inflicted injuries on the head, shoulder and other parts of body of her son PW. 14 Paramsukh. He fell down. Her husband PW. 13 Loonkaran was also assaulted with the "Jharbad" and "Jai". She proved report Ex. P8. She stated that she remained in hospital for 13 days, PW. 13 Loonkaran remained in hospital for 11 days and her son PW. 14 Paramsukh for 15 days in hospital for treatment. She identified the accused persons, who were present in the Court. A suggestion was put to this witness by the accused persons that the cows were causing damage to the crops, on which she stated that it was drought year and there was no crop at all. Site map Ex. P10 and site inspection note Ex. P9 are on record. They have been proved by PW. 3 Mohan Ram and PW. 5 Megh Raj. On careful scrutiny of Ex. P9 and Ex.PIO, it shows that the place of occurrence was uncultivated land and only shows that bushes were cut and collected. She was put to lengthy cross- examination but nothing could be elicited and she was consistent to her case. 7. PW. 13 Loonkaran husband of PW. 1 is also an injured eye- witness of the occurrence. In his deposition, he stated that on 29.11.1985 at about 7.30 in the morning, he along with his son PW. 14 Paramsukh, PW. 19 Nema Ram and brother- in- law of Nema Ram PW. 3 Mohan Ram were sitting in their hamlet. His daughter PW. 18 Papu and Pila went for grazing the cattle in their field which is about 50- 60 passage from his hamlet. They came leaving cows, on which his wife PW. 1 Pani asked them that the cows would go unattended, so his daughter PW. 18 Papu and his wife went to bring the cows. Accused Nena Ram, Triloka Ram, Bhoora Ram, Rana Ram and Magiya were cutting the bushes in the field of Rana Ram. When his wife wanted to protest against taking away the cows by these persons, Rana Ram said Nema Ram to kill his wife Pani, on which Nena Ram inflicted "Jharbad" blow on the head of his wife Pani. Accused Nena Ram, Triloka Ram, Bhoora Ram, Rana Ram and Magiya were cutting the bushes in the field of Rana Ram. When his wife wanted to protest against taking away the cows by these persons, Rana Ram said Nema Ram to kill his wife Pani, on which Nena Ram inflicted "Jharbad" blow on the head of his wife Pani. Other accused were also there. On seeing his wife being assaulted and hearing the cries of his wife Pani and PW. 18 Papu, he along with his son Paramsukh ran to the spot. At that time, Pani was surrounded by the accused persons. PW. 14 Paramsukh wanted to rescue his mother, on which accused Nena Ram, Rana Ram, Bhoora Ram. Triloka Ram and Magiya started assaulting him. Nena Ram inflicted "Farsi" (Jharbad) blow on backside of neck of Paramsukh. When he wanted to repeat the assault, in order to save his son, Loonkaran intervened. Paramsukh was also assaulted by Triloka, who inflicted "Jharbad" injury on the head of Paramsukh due to which he fell down. He requested not to kill his son, on which Nena Ram inflicted injury on his head. Thereafter, Rana Ram assaulted him. Due to the injuries, he fell down. They were assaulted by Magiya, Triloka and Bhoora with "Jharbad". When all these persons were assaulted, his son PW. 19 Nema Ram and Nema Rams brother- in- law PW. 3 Mohan Ram came there and rescued them. Triloka Ram also wanted to assault Nema Ram and ran after him and caught hold him but somehow Nema Ram escaped. Mohan Ram rescued them. All the three persons were soiled with blood. He sustained injuries and fracture. His son Nema Ram and Nema Rams brother in- iaw took them to hamlet and then to Phalodi in a bull cart. Thereafter, doctors at Phalodi hospital referred them to Jodhpur. There was blood on the spot, due to which their cloths were smeared with blood. He stated that "Farsi" and "Jharbad" is one and same thing. 8. PW. 14 Paramsukh is also an injured eyewitness of the occurrence and he has also narrated the entire story as is stated by PW. 1 Pani and PW. 13 Loonkaran. In his deposition, he stated that accused Nena Ram, Rana Ram, Maga Ram, Bhoora Ram and Triloka Ram surrounded his mother. 8. PW. 14 Paramsukh is also an injured eyewitness of the occurrence and he has also narrated the entire story as is stated by PW. 1 Pani and PW. 13 Loonkaran. In his deposition, he stated that accused Nena Ram, Rana Ram, Maga Ram, Bhoora Ram and Triloka Ram surrounded his mother. They forcibly took away their cows and tied them despite the protest made by his mother. Nena Ram struck "Jharbad" blow on the forehead of his mother, where a gold ornament (Boriya) was put. At that time, he was about 20- 25 paces away from the place of occurrence. When he tried to rescue his mother, Rana Ram said the other accused persons to kill Paramsukh. On which, Nena Ram inflicted "Jharbad" blow on his shoulder, Triloka Ram inflicted "Jai" blow behind his neck and Bhoora Ram inflicted injuries on his face, due to which his four lower teeth were broken and he fell down on the spot. His father Loonkaran came to rescue him but he was also assaulted by Nena Ram, Rana Ram and Maga Ram. His brother Nema Ram PW. 19 and Mohan Ram came. Accused Nena Ram shouted that Nimbu Ram and Mohan Ram be killed, on which Triloka Ram ran behind Nimbu Ram and caught hold his shirt but somehow his brother escaped. In cross- examination, a suggestion was made to his witness that the cows were causing damage to their field, which he denied and he stated that he cows were forcibly taken away by the accused persons despite the protest made by his mother. 9. PW. 2 Dr. Kamal Kumar Sabarwal, Radiologist proved X- ray film Ex. P2, Ex. 3 and Ex. 4 and stated that he medically examined Pani and found that there was a fracture of frontal bone of Smt. Pani wife of Loonkaran. He also stated that he examined Paramsukh son of Loonkaran and carried out the x-ray films of his teeth. He has proved x- ray film Ex.P5, P6 and P7. On his examination, he found that right side bottom teeth 1 to 6 of Paramsukh were missing and left side bottom 1 to 3 teeth were missing. For fourth and fifth teeth, only roots were visible but their crowns were missing because of fracture. 10. PW. He has proved x- ray film Ex.P5, P6 and P7. On his examination, he found that right side bottom teeth 1 to 6 of Paramsukh were missing and left side bottom 1 to 3 teeth were missing. For fourth and fifth teeth, only roots were visible but their crowns were missing because of fracture. 10. PW. 3 Mohan Ram is an eye- witness of the occurrence and he has also made a similar statement as that of PW. 1 Pani, PW. 13 Loonkaran and PW. 14 Paramsukh. In his deposition, he stated that at about 7.30 in the morning, daughters of Loonkaran PW. 18 Papu and Pila went for grazing the cows and he along with Loonkaran, Paramsukh and Nema Ram was taking breakfast. At that time, Papu and Piia came back leaving the cows unattended and Pani along with Papu went back to take care of the cows. He heard cries. Soon after hearing the cries, he along with PW. 19 Nema Ram went towards the field, where they found five persons namely Nena Ram, Bhoora Ram Triloka Ram, Rana Ram and Maga having "Jharbad" in their hands. "Jharbad" is an iron instrument which is fixed with wooden stick and used for cutting bushes. Triloka Ram and Magia had baiees". He requested them not to kill these persons. Thereafter, accused persons left all the three injured namely Pani, Loonkaran and Paramsukh. Blood was flowing out from the injured persons. Pani sustained injury on her head. The witness showed the exact place where Pani sustained injury. Her cloths were full of blood. Gold ornament "Boriya" tied on the forehead was cut into two pieces. Paramsukh sustained injuries on his face, hands , head and on other parts of body and his teeth were lying on the ground. He further stated that Loonkaran sustained injury. There was a wound over his right eye, his cloths were also full of blood and his turban was lying. He along with Nema Ram took Pani, Loonkaran and Paramsukh to their house first and thereafter, on bullcart to bus stand and then to Phalodi. Thereafter, they went to police station, Phalodi. He has proved Ex. 9, the site map prepared by the police and site inspection note Ex.R 10. He has stated that police came and investigated the site. He along with Nema Ram took Pani, Loonkaran and Paramsukh to their house first and thereafter, on bullcart to bus stand and then to Phalodi. Thereafter, they went to police station, Phalodi. He has proved Ex. 9, the site map prepared by the police and site inspection note Ex.R 10. He has stated that police came and investigated the site. While the site was investigated by the police, three teeth of Paramsukh were lying on the site, which were seized by the police. Loonkarans turban was seized by the police. He has proved article 2 turban of Loonkaran. Article 3 is the part of "Boriya", article 4 blood smeared soil and articles 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 were proved by this witness. 11. PW. 4 Dr. M.R Joshi, Medical Jurist, Jodhpur has proved the injury report of Smt. Pani wife of Loonkaran Ex.P11. He stated that on his examination, he found incised wound (4 cm. X 0.6 cm. bone deep) on the frontal region (forehead). The injury was caused by sharp edged weapon. He has also examined injured Paramsukh and prepared injury report Ex.R 12. He found 7 injuries on the person of PW. 14 Paramsukh, out of which, two were incised wounds, two were lacerated and rest of the injuries were abrasions. Injuries No. 3 & 5 were caused by sharp edged weapon and injuries No. 1, 2 and 4 by blunt weapon. He stated that Paramsukh was referred to Dentist. He had also examined PW. 13 Loonkaran and prepared his injury report Ex.P13. He stated that Loonkaran had sustained as many as 10 injuries, out of them three were lacerated, one incised and others were abrasions. Injury No. 1 was caused by sharp edged weapon and rest by blunt weapon. He opined that injury No. 1 in Ex.P. 11 in respect of Smt. Pani was grievous in nature. In Ex.P. 12. injury No. 3 was grievous in nature in respect of Paramsukh. He stated that possibility of danger of life by the injury caused to Pani vide Ex.PH could not be ruled out. 12. PW. 5 Meghraj is Motbir to site inspection memo Ex.P 9 and site map Ex.P 10. He proved Ex.P9 and Ex.PIO. PW. 7 Kishan Lal, PW. 8 Tola Ram and PW. He stated that possibility of danger of life by the injury caused to Pani vide Ex.PH could not be ruled out. 12. PW. 5 Meghraj is Motbir to site inspection memo Ex.P 9 and site map Ex.P 10. He proved Ex.P9 and Ex.PIO. PW. 7 Kishan Lal, PW. 8 Tola Ram and PW. 10 Malam Singh are witnesses to the recoveries of "Bai" Ex.P17 "Jharbad", Ex.P18 from accused Neria Ram and Ex.P21 the arrest memo of accused Nema Ram and recovery memo of "Jharbad" from Nena Ram Ex.P23. He has proved Ex.P24 and articles 11 and 12. PW. 11 Mage Giri Goswami is a witness to the seizure of blood stained clothes of Smt. Pani vide Ex.P25. 13. On appreciation of the afore noticed evidence, the trial court found the appellants guilty and convicted them as aforesaid. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the judgment of the trial court, scanned, scrutinised and evaluated the evidence on record. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that second and third appellants namely Bhoora Ram and Triloka Ram also sustained injuries in the said occurrence and prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on the persons of the accused. It was further contended that there are contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution has failed to establish the place of occurrence. Therefore, he contended that the prosecution has not come out with the true occurrence. On the contrary, the prosecution has suppressed the real genesis of occurrence and, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the trial court fell in error in convicting and sentencing the appellants as aforesaid. 16. I have carefully gone through the statements of all the prosecution witnesses, more particularly three injured eye- witnesses namely PW. 1 Pani, PW. 13 Loonkaran and PW. 14 Paramsukh, who sustained various injuries noticed above in the hands of accused-appellants. The testimony of these eye- witnesses is corroborated by the statements of PW. 18 Pappu, PW. 19 Nema Ram alias Nimbu and PW. 3 Mohan Ram. They are independent eye- witnesses. The presence of these witnesses has been fully established. Testimony of these witnesses is consistent so far as the place of occurrence, manner in which the occurrence took place and the injuries inflicted to PW. 1, PW. 13 and PW. 18 Pappu, PW. 19 Nema Ram alias Nimbu and PW. 3 Mohan Ram. They are independent eye- witnesses. The presence of these witnesses has been fully established. Testimony of these witnesses is consistent so far as the place of occurrence, manner in which the occurrence took place and the injuries inflicted to PW. 1, PW. 13 and PW. 14 are concerned. Injury sustained by Smt. Pani has been established by Ex.P/11, injury report and Ex.P/4 report of Radiologist. Injuries sustained by PW. 14 Paramsukh have been established by Ex.P/12 injury report, Ex.P/5 x- ray report Ex.P/7 report of the Radiologist and Ex.P/14. So is the case of injuries sustained by PW. 13 Loonkaran by Ex.P/13. These injuries fully corroborate the deposition of the injured eye- witnesses as well as other eye- witnesses and have been proved by the statement of PW. 4 Dr. M.P. Joshi, Medical Jurist. The prosecution case is consistent on all material aspects and barring a few minor contradictions which have hardly any evidentiary value, there are no material contradictions with regard to the place of occurrence, manner in which the occurrence took place and the injuries inflicted by the appellants to PW, 1,PW. 13 and PW. 14. 17. In defence, DW. 1 Bhopal Singh and DW. 2 Bhiyan Ram were produced. These two witnesses stated that a lady came and abused the accused and inflicted a lathi blow on Triloka and Bhoora Ram. The defence story does not inspire any confidence inasmuch as there were number of persons armed with "Jharbads" and "Baies" and a single lady is not expected to inflict injuries on those persons. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show any serious injury alleged to have been caused to the accused-appellants. The appellants have not placed on record any injury report in respect of appellant Bhoora Ram. Injuries to appellant Triloka Ram are superficial and simple in nature and. therefore, cannot be said to have been caused by PW. 1 Smt. Pani. Moreso, the Doctor, who examined Triloka Ram, was not produced and examined, therefore, the defence failed to prove injuries to appellant Triloka Ram. Not only this, the injuries alleged to have been sustained by Triloka Ram are not of at about the time of occurrence. For this reason, the trial court did not rely on the defence plea and in my considered opinion, rightly so. Not only this, the injuries alleged to have been sustained by Triloka Ram are not of at about the time of occurrence. For this reason, the trial court did not rely on the defence plea and in my considered opinion, rightly so. Thus, on careful scrutiny of the prosecution evidence more particularly eye- witnesses of the occurrence, I find no material contradiction in the prosecution case. When an occurrence is witnessed by various injured persons, every injured person and other eye- witnesses has his own way of narration and in such a case, if there are minor contradictions in their testimony, that cannot be a ground to disbelieve the version given by such natural witnesses. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padam Singh v. State of U.P., 2000 SCC (Cri) 285 , wherein the Apex Court held that when the prosecution does not explain the injuries sustained by the accused about the time of the occurrence or in the course of occurrence, the Court can draw the inference that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and has, thus, not presented the true version. Where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses, then non- explanation of the injury on the accused by the prosecution assumes greater importance. In that case, three persons belonging to the accused party died and the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the persons, who died in the occurrence. The instant case is on altogether different facts. The accused have failed to prove any serious nature of injury sustained by them. Merely because a defence witness says that accused Bhoora Ram and Triloka Ram sustained lathi injuries in the hands of a lady, cannot be said to be a true version of the occurrence, whereas in the instant case, the prosecution has not suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence of this case. On the contrary, the prosecution case is consistent and reliable. No improbability is pointed out. Thus, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants is of no help in the facts and circumstances of the case. 19. On the contrary, the prosecution case is consistent and reliable. No improbability is pointed out. Thus, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants is of no help in the facts and circumstances of the case. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the firstly accused appellant Nena Ram has remained in jail for ten days from 16.2.1986 to 25.2.1986 and second appellant Bhoora Ram for the period from 30.11.1985 to 17.12.1985 about 18 days and now about more than 10 years have elapsed and, therefore, he contended that sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone. In the instant case, PW. 1 Smt. Pani sustained grievous injury by a sharp edged weapon on her vital part i.e. on forehead. She was hospitalised for a considerable period of fortnight and remained under treatment for number of months. The said injury was assigned to first appellant Nena Ram. Period of 10 days undergone by him would not be sufficient sentence for the offence under section 326 I.P.C. Appellant Bhoora Ram was undergone imprisonment for a period of 18 days only. PW. 14 Paramsukh sustained grievous injuries by blunt weapon in the hands of accused-appellants Bhoora Ram. He has lost number of teeth, which is evident from Ex.P/7 and Ex.P/14. PW. 14 was hospitalised for a period of fortnight and thereafter, also remained under treatment for a considerable time. I cannot accept the request to reduce the sentence already undergone by the appellants, therefore, the prayer for reducing the sentence to the period of imprisonment undergone by these appellants is rejected. However, taking into consideration, all the facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant Nena Ram is reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 326 I.P.C. and fine in the form of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-. So far as accused-appellants Bhoora Ram is concerned, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 325 I.P.C. and 1 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 I.PC. is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment and the fine in the form of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment and the fine in the form of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. So far as third accused-appellants Triloka Ram is concerned, the trial court has extended him the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, therefore, no interference is called for. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was justified in convicting the accused appellants for the offences noticed above and, therefore, the conviction of first appellant Nena Ram for the offence under sections 326, 323 and 324 I.P.C., second appellant Bhoora Ram for the offences under section 325, 323 and 324 I.P.C. and third appellant Triloka Ram for offences under sections 323 and 324/34 I.P.C. are maintained and, therefore, appeal challenging conviction is dismissed. However, appeal filed by accused-appellants Nena Ram and Bhoora Ram challenging quantum of sentences is partly allowed in the following manner: 21. Sentence of appellant Nena Ram for the offence under section 326 I.P.C. is reduced to one years rigorous imprisonment and fine is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- in default of payment of fine, the accused appellant shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Sentence of second accused-appellants Bhoora Ram for offence under section 325 and 324 I.PC. is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment and fine is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Order of sentences passed against the appellants Nena Ram and Bhoora Ram are accordingly modified. Since accused-appellants Nena Ram and Bhoora Ram are on bait, they shall surrender before the trial court to serve the remaining period of sentence. The fine amount shall be paid within two months from the receipt of this order. Fine so recovered from appellant Nena Ram be paid to PW. 1 Smt. Pani and from appellant Bhoora Ram be paid to PW. 14 Paramsukh. Ordered accordingly.Appeal partly allowed. *******